Чингисхан. Человек, завоевавший мир. Фрэнк Маклинн
Читать онлайн книгу.
& Hambis, Campagnes pp. 185–187.
190
Roux, La mort pp. 92–96.
191
SHC pp. 23–24.
192
SHC p. 25; SHR pp. 23–24.
193
Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan pp. 25–26.
194
RT i pp. 93–94; SHC pp. 25–26.
195
SHC pp. 27–28; SHO pp. 70–71.
196
Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan p. 26.
197
SHC p. 29; SHO p. 73.
198
SHO pp. 73–74; SHR pp. 26–27.
199
SHO p. 75; SHW p. 252.
200
SHC pp. 30–31.
201
SHO pp. 75–76. For the subsequent career of Bo’orchu, who seems to have died in 1227, roughly the same time as Genghis himself, see Pelliot & Hambis, Campagnes pp. 342–360.
202
Riasanovsky, Fundamental Principles p. 90.
203
Pelliot & Hambis, Campagnes pp. 411–414; Vladimirtsov, Le regime social pp. 58–59.
204
RT i pp. 80–89.
205
Krader, Social Organization pp. 39, 89 is the source for this. In the kind of language beloved of academic anthropologists he tells us that Temujin’s marriage was an example of matrilateral cross-cousin marriage (ibid, p. 344).
206
Rachewiltz, Commentary pp. 391–392.
207
RT i p. 93.
208
SHO pp. 79–81; SHR pp. 31–32; SHW p. 256.
209
Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan p. 34.
210
JB i pp. 187–188; Boyle, Successors p. 31.
211
SHC pp. 34–38.
212
Gumilev, Imaginary Kingdom p. 143. On the other hand, it has been argued strongly that the Merkit raid is not historical but a folkloric trope, a perennial motif in epic poetry about the theft of women, whether of Europa by Zeus, Helen by Paris or the Princess Sita’s seizure in the Hindu epic Ramayana. The raid is one of the prime exhibits in H. Okada, ‘The Secret History of the Mongols, a Pseudo-historical Novel, Journal of Asian and African Studies 5 (1972) pp. 61–67 (at р. 63). But the theory is unconvincing if only because it makes Chagatai’s later violent hostility to Jochi on the grounds of his illegitimacy impossible to fathom.
213
Togan, Flexibility p. 73; Pelliot & Hambis, Campagnes pp. 250, 401.
214
Mostaert, Sur quelques passages p. 32.
215
Pelliot & Hambis, Campagnes pp. 279–281; Rachewiltz, Commentary p. 421.
216
SHC pp. 38–39.
217
SHO pp. 91–92; SHR p. 41; Rachewiltz, Commentary p. 428.
218
SHC pp. 43–47. As Ratchnevsky tersely comments: ‘Rashid’s version is implausible’ (Genghis Khan p. 35).
219
SHC pp. 39–42.
220
RT i p. 107.
221
RT i pp. 107–108.
222
Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan p. 36.
223
SHO pp. 85–87; SHR рр. 35–36.
224
SHO pp. 87–90; SHR pp. 37–39; Rachewiltz, Commentary p. 417.
225
Rachewiltz, Commentary p. 435.
226
SHC pp. 52–53; SHO pp. 95–96; SHR pp. 44–45; SHW p. 262.
227
V V Bartold, ‘Chingis-Khan,’ in Encyclopaedia of Islam (1st ed., repr. 1968 v pp. 615–628 (at p. 617)); Vladimirtsov, Le regime social pp. 107–108; Vladimirtsov, Genghis Khan p. 130.
228
Grousset, Conqueror of the World p. 67.
229
SHO pp. 96–97; SHR pp. 44–46.
230
Vladimirtsov, Le regime social pp. 105–107.
231
As Rachewiltz sagely remarks, ‘If neither Temujin nor his wife could understand Jamuga’s poetic riddle, what hope have we, who are so far removed from that culture, to understand what was the real meaning of those words?’ (Rachewiltz, Commentary p. 442).
232
Owen Lattimore, ‘Chingis Khan and the Mongol Conquests,’ Scientific American 209 (1963) pp. 55–68 (at p. 62); Lattimore, ‘Honor and Loyalty: the case of Temujin and Jamukha,’ in Clark & Draghi, Aspects pp. 127–138 (at p. 133).
233
Grousset, Empire pp. 201–202; Gumilev, Imaginary Kingdom pp. 143–145.
234
The numbers mentioned in the Secret History are unreliable for a number of reasons: 1) the author embellished with poetic licence and routinely inflated the size of armies; 2) the author anachronistically projected back into the twelfth century names, titles, technologies